I honestly don't think any of the candidates are at risk of dying of old age in office. I definitely get the desire for younger candidates and by god I feel you, but fear of their passing just seems like an anxiety that only exists in discourse spaces like here. I don't ever really see it talked about when it comes to the mythical Average Voter.
+2
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
I thought Warren's was bad since it started off with "Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans." If you're going to condemn a killing, don't start out with how the victim was a garbage person who probably had it coming.
She and Biden both did, that's the problem. Sanders started out with what amounts to a non sequitur but the rest of his statement is strong and sets him apart. The vote stuff can go at the end, the current events need to come first.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
0
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I thought Warren's was bad since it started off with "Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans." If you're going to condemn a killing, don't start out with how the victim was a garbage person who probably had it coming.
She and Biden both did, that's the problem. Sanders started out with what amounts to a non sequitur but the rest of his statement is strong and sets him apart. The vote stuff can go at the end, the current events need to come first.
Ugh, I was browsing on the phone, so I just read the short 'dynamite into a tinderbox' quote in the tweet, not the embedded statement. Warren's statement is still more disappointing though since I have much lower expectations for basically everything Biden does.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
IMO, you can blame this messed-up country and its near-perpetual warboner (as long as it's not them or their kids being sent off to die for oil and empire), and the need to appear Strong On Terrorism.
As Trump pushes us into another war I think this is a good time to remember that Bernie is the most staunchly anti-war candidate. He was an anti-war activist and conscientious objector during the Vietnam war. He voted against the Gulf War. He voted against the Iraq war, in contrast to a large number of Democrats, including Joe Biden. He has made ending endless war a major plank of his campaign. Etc.
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I think at this point it is a good contrast, but war feels inevitable at this point.
I would love to have someone in the chair who is not going to go out of their way to create new ones, like the one we will most definitely be in the thick of during this election cycle.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+2
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited January 2020
I am souring on Warren because "Qasem Soleimani was a Big Murderer with Blood on his Hands but a war would be dangerous and costly (in terms of money)" doesn't sway the war-horny and definitely doesn't reassure the people worried that democrats will let themselves be bullied and intimidated into fucking up the Middle East even more, especially after voting for Trump's space force and other bullshit. Is the Netherlands allowed to assassinate one of Bolsonaro's generals because of the murders of indigenous leaders and Brazil's homophobia? Can Norway kill a Hungarian or Polish general because those countries are more authoritarian and less less secular? Just say "We can't make countries do what we want by killing their officials due to some arbitrary and selective applications of moral standards".
I am souring on Warren because "Qasem Soleimani was a Big Murderer with Blood on his Hands but a war would be dangerous and costly (in terms of money)" doesn't sway the war-horny and definitely doesn't reassure the people worried that democrats will let themselves be bullied and intimidated into fucking up the Middle East even more, especially after voting for Trump's space force and other bullshit. Is the Netherlands allowed to assassinate one of Bolsonaro's generals because of the murders of indigenous leaders and Brazil's homophobia? Can Norway kill a Hungarian or Polish general because those countries are more authoritarian and less less secular? Just say "We can't make countries do what we want by killing their officials due to some arbitrary and selective applications of moral standards".
"Soleimani was a bad guy but we definitely shouldn't have killed him" is the right tack to take here, since you need to insulate yourself from the "But he was a bad guy" counter-attacks that are inevitably going to come your way.
I'm not sure how you read "The Netherlands should assassinate the Brazilian president" into that.
PS - Also the Space Force was meaningless so I'm not sure why that's a negative.
I thought Warren's was bad since it started off with "Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans." If you're going to condemn a killing, don't start out with how the victim was a garbage person who probably had it coming.
A lot of the Dem messaging is going to start with that sentiment, and it sucks.
Sanders war voting record is mostly if there's a Democratic President say it's complicated and if there's a Republican President oppose the action, with the exception of the AUMF.
He opposed Reagan pseudo-wars. He opposed the Gulf War or any US intervention to protect the Kuwaitis which if you're an absolutist anti-war person I guess is justifiable. Generally a country invading another country is a pretty ironclad act of war though. And he voted against the Iraq War in 2003.
However, he also voted for Kosovo bombing (Clinton) and in support of Libyan regime change and "such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.” He backed bombings of Iraq throughout the 1990s starting once Clinton was about to be sworn in.
Back in Washington, days before Democrat Bill Clinton would be sworn in as president, Bush fired 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles at what the U.S. said were weapons depots hidden in the suburbs of Baghdad.
Sanders, along with Vermont Republican Sen. Jim Jeffords, said he supported the bombing and that it was justified, according to the Burlington Free Press.
“My reaction is in two parts,” Sanders said of supporting the targeted bombings. “Number one, the credibility of the United Nations is damaged if the U.N. resolutions are not enforced. On the other hand, I would have preferred President Bush to have allowed Clinton to make the decisions on how we will proceed.”
...
In 1996 — five years after voting against the Iraq war resolution following Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait — Sanders and Leahy were squarely behind Clinton’s decision to fire cruise missiles at military targets in the Middle Eastern country.
Sanders and Leahy said the circumstances were very different than they had been in 1991 — the most striking change being this was a series of missile attacks and not the start of a ground war, according to an article by the Rutland Herald.
Sanders told the Herald that Saddam “must learn that military aggression will not be tolerated by the international community” and that the deal that was reached to end the Persian Gulf War meant nothing to the Iraqi leader.
He added that it was a matter of humanitarian intervention and that if the Iraqi assault on Kurdish rebels went unanswered, it would “allow the green light for an unstable tyrant to continue to commit atrocities.”
In 1998, Guma met with Sanders to discuss foreign policy. It would be the last time the two would sit down to have a private conversation on U.S. military intervention.
“He was supporting Bill Clinton, who was bombing Iraq at the time,” Guma said.
However, Sanders would send a letter to Clinton in the winter of 1998 urging the president not to attack Iraq without approval from Congress and hinting that diplomacy could be more effective.
Guma said that Sanders’ relationship with the Middle East and U.S. intervention is complicated and that the Vermont independent has never been against the use of force “or even targeted force.”
“The idea of targeted assassination, to go and take the bad guy out — he isn’t totally opposed to that kind of executive action,” he said.
During that 1998 meeting, Guma remembers Sanders saying that the widespread support among the U.S. population for military intervention in Iraq was the reason why he was backing Clinton’s strategy and that it was up to the peace movement to change people’s minds on the conflict.
“And it changed. And he opposed the war,” Guma said of Sanders’ decision to vote against the war in 2002.
He said he'd continue using drone strikes if elected when Obama was President and now said he would not when Trump is President. Many Democrats wanted Bill Clinton to intervene in the Rwandan genocide and Sanders has said that the US and other countries should have intervened
Ezra Klein: Let me ask you then not a hypothetical but a retrospective. Should America have intervened to stop the Rwandan Genocide?
Bernie Sanders: “Yes, but it’s not just America. This is the problem that we face. We are spending more money on the military than the next nine countries behind us. Where is the U.K.? Where is France?
“Germany is the economic powerhouse in Europe. They provide health care to all of their people; they provide free college education to their kids. You know what? Germany and France and the U.K. and Scandinavia and the rest of Europe, all of us have got to work together to prevent those types of genocide and atrocities, and we have to strengthen the United Nations in order to do that.”
I think the charitable view is Sanders is not an ideological pacifist but that he wants to avoid entangling the US in foreign ground conflicts. I personally think there's more of a disinterest in the details of FP and his streak of isolationism informs as much as fundamentally being anti-war.
I thought Warren's was bad since it started off with "Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans." If you're going to condemn a killing, don't start out with how the victim was a garbage person who probably had it coming.
A lot of the Dem messaging is going to start with that sentiment, and it sucks.
Yup. But it's also kinda necessary, because the public don't give a shit about nuance, and the media have shown they've got no interest in trying to explain it.
Ask John Kerry about "I was for it before I was against it.". Yes, it was probably poor phrasing, but doesn't change the fact that his argument wasn't nearly as flawed as it was made out to be.
This is the lapel flag pin level of "by-the-numbers patriotism". Failure to do so is just going to be met with having to try and explain why you don't hate America.
Sanders war voting record is mostly if there's a Democratic President say it's complicated and if there's a Republican President oppose the action, with the exception of the AUMF.
He opposed Reagan pseudo-wars. He opposed the Gulf War or any US intervention to protect the Kuwaitis which if you're an absolutist anti-war person I guess is justifiable. Generally a country invading another country is a pretty ironclad act of war though. And he voted against the Iraq War in 2003.
However, he also voted for Kosovo bombing (Clinton) and in support of Libyan regime change and "such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.” He backed bombings of Iraq throughout the 1990s starting once Clinton was about to be sworn in.
Back in Washington, days before Democrat Bill Clinton would be sworn in as president, Bush fired 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles at what the U.S. said were weapons depots hidden in the suburbs of Baghdad.
Sanders, along with Vermont Republican Sen. Jim Jeffords, said he supported the bombing and that it was justified, according to the Burlington Free Press.
“My reaction is in two parts,” Sanders said of supporting the targeted bombings. “Number one, the credibility of the United Nations is damaged if the U.N. resolutions are not enforced. On the other hand, I would have preferred President Bush to have allowed Clinton to make the decisions on how we will proceed.”
...
In 1996 — five years after voting against the Iraq war resolution following Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait — Sanders and Leahy were squarely behind Clinton’s decision to fire cruise missiles at military targets in the Middle Eastern country.
Sanders and Leahy said the circumstances were very different than they had been in 1991 — the most striking change being this was a series of missile attacks and not the start of a ground war, according to an article by the Rutland Herald.
Sanders told the Herald that Saddam “must learn that military aggression will not be tolerated by the international community” and that the deal that was reached to end the Persian Gulf War meant nothing to the Iraqi leader.
He added that it was a matter of humanitarian intervention and that if the Iraqi assault on Kurdish rebels went unanswered, it would “allow the green light for an unstable tyrant to continue to commit atrocities.”
In 1998, Guma met with Sanders to discuss foreign policy. It would be the last time the two would sit down to have a private conversation on U.S. military intervention.
“He was supporting Bill Clinton, who was bombing Iraq at the time,” Guma said.
However, Sanders would send a letter to Clinton in the winter of 1998 urging the president not to attack Iraq without approval from Congress and hinting that diplomacy could be more effective.
Guma said that Sanders’ relationship with the Middle East and U.S. intervention is complicated and that the Vermont independent has never been against the use of force “or even targeted force.”
“The idea of targeted assassination, to go and take the bad guy out — he isn’t totally opposed to that kind of executive action,” he said.
During that 1998 meeting, Guma remembers Sanders saying that the widespread support among the U.S. population for military intervention in Iraq was the reason why he was backing Clinton’s strategy and that it was up to the peace movement to change people’s minds on the conflict.
“And it changed. And he opposed the war,” Guma said of Sanders’ decision to vote against the war in 2002.
He said he'd continue using drone strikes if elected when Obama was President and now said he would not when Trump is President. Many Democrats wanted Bill Clinton to intervene in the Rwandan genocide and Sanders has said that the US and other countries should have intervened
Ezra Klein: Let me ask you then not a hypothetical but a retrospective. Should America have intervened to stop the Rwandan Genocide?
Bernie Sanders: “Yes, but it’s not just America. This is the problem that we face. We are spending more money on the military than the next nine countries behind us. Where is the U.K.? Where is France?
“Germany is the economic powerhouse in Europe. They provide health care to all of their people; they provide free college education to their kids. You know what? Germany and France and the U.K. and Scandinavia and the rest of Europe, all of us have got to work together to prevent those types of genocide and atrocities, and we have to strengthen the United Nations in order to do that.”
I think the charitable view is Sanders is not an ideological pacifist but that he wants to avoid entangling the US in foreign ground conflicts. I personally think there's more of a disinterest in the details of FP and his streak of isolationism informs as much as fundamentally being anti-war.
Honestly "I don't trust a Republican to make good decisions in an armed conflict but I would trust a Democrat" seems to fit the pattern more and is a pretty obvious and coherent stance to take.
I thought Warren's was bad since it started off with "Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans." If you're going to condemn a killing, don't start out with how the victim was a garbage person who probably had it coming.
A lot of the Dem messaging is going to start with that sentiment, and it sucks.
Yup. But it's also kinda necessary, because the public don't give a shit about nuance, and the media have shown they've got no interest in trying to explain it.
Ask John Kerry about "I was for it before I was against it.". Yes, it was probably poor phrasing, but doesn't change the fact that his argument wasn't nearly as flawed as it was made out to be.
This is the lapel flag pin level of "by-the-numbers patriotism". Failure to do so is just going to be met with having to try and explain why you don't hate America.
If a child rapist gets killed in prison basically everyone is going to say either "Good" or "I mean he was a monster but ..."
I don't think this is much different. The guy was a bad guy, but also killing him this way was bad.
I thought Warren's was bad since it started off with "Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans." If you're going to condemn a killing, don't start out with how the victim was a garbage person who probably had it coming.
A lot of the Dem messaging is going to start with that sentiment, and it sucks.
I’m not entirely sure. The general voter is going to hear that Soleimani was killed but then also hear the things he was responsible for in his position, and most people are going to probably think it’s good that this guy is dead.
The “he was a bad guy, but this was wrong” take is where quite a few people are going to land on this one.
I thought Warren's was bad since it started off with "Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans." If you're going to condemn a killing, don't start out with how the victim was a garbage person who probably had it coming.
A lot of the Dem messaging is going to start with that sentiment, and it sucks.
Yup. But it's also kinda necessary, because the public don't give a shit about nuance, and the media have shown they've got no interest in trying to explain it.
Ask John Kerry about "I was for it before I was against it.". Yes, it was probably poor phrasing, but doesn't change the fact that his argument wasn't nearly as flawed as it was made out to be.
This is the lapel flag pin level of "by-the-numbers patriotism". Failure to do so is just going to be met with having to try and explain why you don't hate America.
No, it's not necessary. This should be condemned unconditionally, not giving them cover.
Sanders war voting record is mostly if there's a Democratic President say it's complicated and if there's a Republican President oppose the action, with the exception of the AUMF.
He opposed Reagan pseudo-wars. He opposed the Gulf War or any US intervention to protect the Kuwaitis which if you're an absolutist anti-war person I guess is justifiable. Generally a country invading another country is a pretty ironclad act of war though. And he voted against the Iraq War in 2003.
However, he also voted for Kosovo bombing (Clinton) and in support of Libyan regime change and "such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.” He backed bombings of Iraq throughout the 1990s starting once Clinton was about to be sworn in.
Back in Washington, days before Democrat Bill Clinton would be sworn in as president, Bush fired 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles at what the U.S. said were weapons depots hidden in the suburbs of Baghdad.
Sanders, along with Vermont Republican Sen. Jim Jeffords, said he supported the bombing and that it was justified, according to the Burlington Free Press.
“My reaction is in two parts,” Sanders said of supporting the targeted bombings. “Number one, the credibility of the United Nations is damaged if the U.N. resolutions are not enforced. On the other hand, I would have preferred President Bush to have allowed Clinton to make the decisions on how we will proceed.”
...
In 1996 — five years after voting against the Iraq war resolution following Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait — Sanders and Leahy were squarely behind Clinton’s decision to fire cruise missiles at military targets in the Middle Eastern country.
Sanders and Leahy said the circumstances were very different than they had been in 1991 — the most striking change being this was a series of missile attacks and not the start of a ground war, according to an article by the Rutland Herald.
Sanders told the Herald that Saddam “must learn that military aggression will not be tolerated by the international community” and that the deal that was reached to end the Persian Gulf War meant nothing to the Iraqi leader.
He added that it was a matter of humanitarian intervention and that if the Iraqi assault on Kurdish rebels went unanswered, it would “allow the green light for an unstable tyrant to continue to commit atrocities.”
In 1998, Guma met with Sanders to discuss foreign policy. It would be the last time the two would sit down to have a private conversation on U.S. military intervention.
“He was supporting Bill Clinton, who was bombing Iraq at the time,” Guma said.
However, Sanders would send a letter to Clinton in the winter of 1998 urging the president not to attack Iraq without approval from Congress and hinting that diplomacy could be more effective.
Guma said that Sanders’ relationship with the Middle East and U.S. intervention is complicated and that the Vermont independent has never been against the use of force “or even targeted force.”
“The idea of targeted assassination, to go and take the bad guy out — he isn’t totally opposed to that kind of executive action,” he said.
During that 1998 meeting, Guma remembers Sanders saying that the widespread support among the U.S. population for military intervention in Iraq was the reason why he was backing Clinton’s strategy and that it was up to the peace movement to change people’s minds on the conflict.
“And it changed. And he opposed the war,” Guma said of Sanders’ decision to vote against the war in 2002.
He said he'd continue using drone strikes if elected when Obama was President and now said he would not when Trump is President. Many Democrats wanted Bill Clinton to intervene in the Rwandan genocide and Sanders has said that the US and other countries should have intervened
Ezra Klein: Let me ask you then not a hypothetical but a retrospective. Should America have intervened to stop the Rwandan Genocide?
Bernie Sanders: “Yes, but it’s not just America. This is the problem that we face. We are spending more money on the military than the next nine countries behind us. Where is the U.K.? Where is France?
“Germany is the economic powerhouse in Europe. They provide health care to all of their people; they provide free college education to their kids. You know what? Germany and France and the U.K. and Scandinavia and the rest of Europe, all of us have got to work together to prevent those types of genocide and atrocities, and we have to strengthen the United Nations in order to do that.”
I think the charitable view is Sanders is not an ideological pacifist but that he wants to avoid entangling the US in foreign ground conflicts. I personally think there's more of a disinterest in the details of FP and his streak of isolationism informs as much as fundamentally being anti-war.
Honestly "I don't trust a Republican to make good decisions in an armed conflict but I would trust a Democrat" seems to fit the pattern more and is a pretty obvious and coherent stance to take.
But remember for much of that Sanders claimed Dems and Reps were essentially equivalent. It was bullshit but if he believed it even a little basing his FP positions on it seems unlikely unless he really just didn't prioritize it.
And in a 1989 op-ed in the Burlington Free Press, Sanders lambasted "the corporate-controlled Democratic and Republican parties," and praised the National Organization of Women "for supporting the need for a progressive third party in this country."
"Like millions of other Americans, NOW understands that the Democratic and Republican parties are intellectually and morally bankrupt," Sanders wrote.
"We do not have an effective national political movement which is prepared to fight for power," argued Sanders, "and which challenges the basic assumptions and priorities of the corporate-controlled Democratic and Republican parties – two political parties which have no substantive ideological differences and are, in reality, one party – the party of the ruling class."
And if he becomes Commander In Chief he won't have that measure.
Sanders war voting record is mostly if there's a Democratic President say it's complicated and if there's a Republican President oppose the action, with the exception of the AUMF.
He opposed Reagan pseudo-wars. He opposed the Gulf War or any US intervention to protect the Kuwaitis which if you're an absolutist anti-war person I guess is justifiable. Generally a country invading another country is a pretty ironclad act of war though. And he voted against the Iraq War in 2003.
However, he also voted for Kosovo bombing (Clinton) and in support of Libyan regime change and "such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.” He backed bombings of Iraq throughout the 1990s starting once Clinton was about to be sworn in.
Back in Washington, days before Democrat Bill Clinton would be sworn in as president, Bush fired 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles at what the U.S. said were weapons depots hidden in the suburbs of Baghdad.
Sanders, along with Vermont Republican Sen. Jim Jeffords, said he supported the bombing and that it was justified, according to the Burlington Free Press.
“My reaction is in two parts,” Sanders said of supporting the targeted bombings. “Number one, the credibility of the United Nations is damaged if the U.N. resolutions are not enforced. On the other hand, I would have preferred President Bush to have allowed Clinton to make the decisions on how we will proceed.”
...
In 1996 — five years after voting against the Iraq war resolution following Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait — Sanders and Leahy were squarely behind Clinton’s decision to fire cruise missiles at military targets in the Middle Eastern country.
Sanders and Leahy said the circumstances were very different than they had been in 1991 — the most striking change being this was a series of missile attacks and not the start of a ground war, according to an article by the Rutland Herald.
Sanders told the Herald that Saddam “must learn that military aggression will not be tolerated by the international community” and that the deal that was reached to end the Persian Gulf War meant nothing to the Iraqi leader.
He added that it was a matter of humanitarian intervention and that if the Iraqi assault on Kurdish rebels went unanswered, it would “allow the green light for an unstable tyrant to continue to commit atrocities.”
In 1998, Guma met with Sanders to discuss foreign policy. It would be the last time the two would sit down to have a private conversation on U.S. military intervention.
“He was supporting Bill Clinton, who was bombing Iraq at the time,” Guma said.
However, Sanders would send a letter to Clinton in the winter of 1998 urging the president not to attack Iraq without approval from Congress and hinting that diplomacy could be more effective.
Guma said that Sanders’ relationship with the Middle East and U.S. intervention is complicated and that the Vermont independent has never been against the use of force “or even targeted force.”
“The idea of targeted assassination, to go and take the bad guy out — he isn’t totally opposed to that kind of executive action,” he said.
During that 1998 meeting, Guma remembers Sanders saying that the widespread support among the U.S. population for military intervention in Iraq was the reason why he was backing Clinton’s strategy and that it was up to the peace movement to change people’s minds on the conflict.
“And it changed. And he opposed the war,” Guma said of Sanders’ decision to vote against the war in 2002.
He said he'd continue using drone strikes if elected when Obama was President and now said he would not when Trump is President. Many Democrats wanted Bill Clinton to intervene in the Rwandan genocide and Sanders has said that the US and other countries should have intervened
Ezra Klein: Let me ask you then not a hypothetical but a retrospective. Should America have intervened to stop the Rwandan Genocide?
Bernie Sanders: “Yes, but it’s not just America. This is the problem that we face. We are spending more money on the military than the next nine countries behind us. Where is the U.K.? Where is France?
“Germany is the economic powerhouse in Europe. They provide health care to all of their people; they provide free college education to their kids. You know what? Germany and France and the U.K. and Scandinavia and the rest of Europe, all of us have got to work together to prevent those types of genocide and atrocities, and we have to strengthen the United Nations in order to do that.”
I think the charitable view is Sanders is not an ideological pacifist but that he wants to avoid entangling the US in foreign ground conflicts. I personally think there's more of a disinterest in the details of FP and his streak of isolationism informs as much as fundamentally being anti-war.
Honestly "I don't trust a Republican to make good decisions in an armed conflict but I would trust a Democrat" seems to fit the pattern more and is a pretty obvious and coherent stance to take.
But remember for much of that Sanders claimed Dems and Reps were essentially equivalent. It was bullshit but if he believed it even a little basing his FP positions on it seems unlikely unless he really just didn't prioritize it.
And in a 1989 op-ed in the Burlington Free Press, Sanders lambasted "the corporate-controlled Democratic and Republican parties," and praised the National Organization of Women "for supporting the need for a progressive third party in this country."
"Like millions of other Americans, NOW understands that the Democratic and Republican parties are intellectually and morally bankrupt," Sanders wrote.
"We do not have an effective national political movement which is prepared to fight for power," argued Sanders, "and which challenges the basic assumptions and priorities of the corporate-controlled Democratic and Republican parties – two political parties which have no substantive ideological differences and are, in reality, one party – the party of the ruling class."
And if he becomes Commander In Chief he won't have that measure.
Maybe he didn't fully believe it on foreign policy. I mean, the guy caucuses with the Democrats and is running for that party's nomination.
I thought Warren's was bad since it started off with "Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans." If you're going to condemn a killing, don't start out with how the victim was a garbage person who probably had it coming.
A lot of the Dem messaging is going to start with that sentiment, and it sucks.
Yup. But it's also kinda necessary, because the public don't give a shit about nuance, and the media have shown they've got no interest in trying to explain it.
Ask John Kerry about "I was for it before I was against it.". Yes, it was probably poor phrasing, but doesn't change the fact that his argument wasn't nearly as flawed as it was made out to be.
This is the lapel flag pin level of "by-the-numbers patriotism". Failure to do so is just going to be met with having to try and explain why you don't hate America.
No, it's not necessary. This should be condemned unconditionally, not giving them cover.
It's pretty obvious you are gonna need to head off "But he was a bad guy" claims. The fucking media alone will run with that because they love this shit. And it's also, like, true. The descriptions given of Soleimani are not wrong.
+8
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
Yes Biden and Warren were probably both going to say it, my problem is that they lead with it. They opened with the justification, they should have gone with "implantation bad" right out of the gate. Their statements as given come off as "this is why it's not actually all that bad" followed by why it shouldn't have been done quite the way it was.
If there's one thing that I've learned it's that this stupid shit matters, and these statements as written end up almost being a nod to Trump especially for people who are subconsciously inclined to take in the first thing they read. That is such a shame because in both cases what followed was good.
Sanders' read to me as somewhat exploitative, and while I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt it leaves a bad taste.
I don't come away feeling much better about any of them, although at least Sanders left no room for doubt that he fully condemns the move.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
Sanders war voting record is mostly if there's a Democratic President say it's complicated and if there's a Republican President oppose the action, with the exception of the AUMF.
He opposed Reagan pseudo-wars. He opposed the Gulf War or any US intervention to protect the Kuwaitis which if you're an absolutist anti-war person I guess is justifiable. Generally a country invading another country is a pretty ironclad act of war though. And he voted against the Iraq War in 2003.
However, he also voted for Kosovo bombing (Clinton) and in support of Libyan regime change and "such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.” He backed bombings of Iraq throughout the 1990s starting once Clinton was about to be sworn in.
Back in Washington, days before Democrat Bill Clinton would be sworn in as president, Bush fired 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles at what the U.S. said were weapons depots hidden in the suburbs of Baghdad.
Sanders, along with Vermont Republican Sen. Jim Jeffords, said he supported the bombing and that it was justified, according to the Burlington Free Press.
“My reaction is in two parts,” Sanders said of supporting the targeted bombings. “Number one, the credibility of the United Nations is damaged if the U.N. resolutions are not enforced. On the other hand, I would have preferred President Bush to have allowed Clinton to make the decisions on how we will proceed.”
...
In 1996 — five years after voting against the Iraq war resolution following Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait — Sanders and Leahy were squarely behind Clinton’s decision to fire cruise missiles at military targets in the Middle Eastern country.
Sanders and Leahy said the circumstances were very different than they had been in 1991 — the most striking change being this was a series of missile attacks and not the start of a ground war, according to an article by the Rutland Herald.
Sanders told the Herald that Saddam “must learn that military aggression will not be tolerated by the international community” and that the deal that was reached to end the Persian Gulf War meant nothing to the Iraqi leader.
He added that it was a matter of humanitarian intervention and that if the Iraqi assault on Kurdish rebels went unanswered, it would “allow the green light for an unstable tyrant to continue to commit atrocities.”
In 1998, Guma met with Sanders to discuss foreign policy. It would be the last time the two would sit down to have a private conversation on U.S. military intervention.
“He was supporting Bill Clinton, who was bombing Iraq at the time,” Guma said.
However, Sanders would send a letter to Clinton in the winter of 1998 urging the president not to attack Iraq without approval from Congress and hinting that diplomacy could be more effective.
Guma said that Sanders’ relationship with the Middle East and U.S. intervention is complicated and that the Vermont independent has never been against the use of force “or even targeted force.”
“The idea of targeted assassination, to go and take the bad guy out — he isn’t totally opposed to that kind of executive action,” he said.
During that 1998 meeting, Guma remembers Sanders saying that the widespread support among the U.S. population for military intervention in Iraq was the reason why he was backing Clinton’s strategy and that it was up to the peace movement to change people’s minds on the conflict.
“And it changed. And he opposed the war,” Guma said of Sanders’ decision to vote against the war in 2002.
He said he'd continue using drone strikes if elected when Obama was President and now said he would not when Trump is President. Many Democrats wanted Bill Clinton to intervene in the Rwandan genocide and Sanders has said that the US and other countries should have intervened
Ezra Klein: Let me ask you then not a hypothetical but a retrospective. Should America have intervened to stop the Rwandan Genocide?
Bernie Sanders: “Yes, but it’s not just America. This is the problem that we face. We are spending more money on the military than the next nine countries behind us. Where is the U.K.? Where is France?
“Germany is the economic powerhouse in Europe. They provide health care to all of their people; they provide free college education to their kids. You know what? Germany and France and the U.K. and Scandinavia and the rest of Europe, all of us have got to work together to prevent those types of genocide and atrocities, and we have to strengthen the United Nations in order to do that.”
I think the charitable view is Sanders is not an ideological pacifist but that he wants to avoid entangling the US in foreign ground conflicts. I personally think there's more of a disinterest in the details of FP and his streak of isolationism informs as much as fundamentally being anti-war.
Honestly "I don't trust a Republican to make good decisions in an armed conflict but I would trust a Democrat" seems to fit the pattern more and is a pretty obvious and coherent stance to take.
But remember for much of that Sanders claimed Dems and Reps were essentially equivalent. It was bullshit but if he believed it even a little basing his FP positions on it seems unlikely unless he really just didn't prioritize it.
And in a 1989 op-ed in the Burlington Free Press, Sanders lambasted "the corporate-controlled Democratic and Republican parties," and praised the National Organization of Women "for supporting the need for a progressive third party in this country."
"Like millions of other Americans, NOW understands that the Democratic and Republican parties are intellectually and morally bankrupt," Sanders wrote.
"We do not have an effective national political movement which is prepared to fight for power," argued Sanders, "and which challenges the basic assumptions and priorities of the corporate-controlled Democratic and Republican parties – two political parties which have no substantive ideological differences and are, in reality, one party – the party of the ruling class."
And if he becomes Commander In Chief he won't have that measure.
Sanders winning the election just after Trump plunges us into another hellwar would be the height of black comedy. Even just trying to tie up the war fast would drench his hands in blood.
+6
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
I thought Warren's was bad since it started off with "Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans." If you're going to condemn a killing, don't start out with how the victim was a garbage person who probably had it coming.
A lot of the Dem messaging is going to start with that sentiment, and it sucks.
Yup. But it's also kinda necessary, because the public don't give a shit about nuance, and the media have shown they've got no interest in trying to explain it.
Ask John Kerry about "I was for it before I was against it.". Yes, it was probably poor phrasing, but doesn't change the fact that his argument wasn't nearly as flawed as it was made out to be.
This is the lapel flag pin level of "by-the-numbers patriotism". Failure to do so is just going to be met with having to try and explain why you don't hate America.
No, it's not necessary. This should be condemned unconditionally, not giving them cover.
It's pretty obvious you are gonna need to head off "But he was a bad guy" claims. The fucking media alone will run with that because they love this shit. And it's also, like, true. The descriptions given of Soleimani are not wrong.
They’re irrelevant.
This was an action against a state, not an individual. Mike Pompeo could also be accurately described as a “bad guy responsible for the deaths of thousands”
It would in no way justify someone assassinating him.
I thought Warren's was bad since it started off with "Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans." If you're going to condemn a killing, don't start out with how the victim was a garbage person who probably had it coming.
A lot of the Dem messaging is going to start with that sentiment, and it sucks.
Yup. But it's also kinda necessary, because the public don't give a shit about nuance, and the media have shown they've got no interest in trying to explain it.
Ask John Kerry about "I was for it before I was against it.". Yes, it was probably poor phrasing, but doesn't change the fact that his argument wasn't nearly as flawed as it was made out to be.
This is the lapel flag pin level of "by-the-numbers patriotism". Failure to do so is just going to be met with having to try and explain why you don't hate America.
No, it's not necessary. This should be condemned unconditionally, not giving them cover.
It's pretty obvious you are gonna need to head off "But he was a bad guy" claims. The fucking media alone will run with that because they love this shit. And it's also, like, true. The descriptions given of Soleimani are not wrong.
They’re irrelevant.
This was an action against a state, not an individual. Mike Pompeo could also be accurately described as a “bad guy responsible for the deaths of thousands”
It would in no way justify someone assassinating him.
They aren't irrelevant at all. They are the things people will point out about the guy basically immediately if you protest the action. This will absolutely be framed in part as an action against an individual and you need to be able to answer that narrative.
+2
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
I thought Warren's was bad since it started off with "Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans." If you're going to condemn a killing, don't start out with how the victim was a garbage person who probably had it coming.
A lot of the Dem messaging is going to start with that sentiment, and it sucks.
Yup. But it's also kinda necessary, because the public don't give a shit about nuance, and the media have shown they've got no interest in trying to explain it.
Ask John Kerry about "I was for it before I was against it.". Yes, it was probably poor phrasing, but doesn't change the fact that his argument wasn't nearly as flawed as it was made out to be.
This is the lapel flag pin level of "by-the-numbers patriotism". Failure to do so is just going to be met with having to try and explain why you don't hate America.
No, it's not necessary. This should be condemned unconditionally, not giving them cover.
It's pretty obvious you are gonna need to head off "But he was a bad guy" claims. The fucking media alone will run with that because they love this shit. And it's also, like, true. The descriptions given of Soleimani are not wrong.
They’re irrelevant.
This was an action against a state, not an individual. Mike Pompeo could also be accurately described as a “bad guy responsible for the deaths of thousands”
It would in no way justify someone assassinating him.
They aren't irrelevant at all. They are the things people will point out about the guy basically immediately if you protest the action. This will absolutely be framed in part as an action against an individual and you need to be able to answer that narrative.
You answer a bullshit narrative by showing it to be bullshit not by playing into it
Edit: the answer to “when did you stop beating your wife?” should not be “last week”
I thought Warren's was bad since it started off with "Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans." If you're going to condemn a killing, don't start out with how the victim was a garbage person who probably had it coming.
A lot of the Dem messaging is going to start with that sentiment, and it sucks.
Yup. But it's also kinda necessary, because the public don't give a shit about nuance, and the media have shown they've got no interest in trying to explain it.
Ask John Kerry about "I was for it before I was against it.". Yes, it was probably poor phrasing, but doesn't change the fact that his argument wasn't nearly as flawed as it was made out to be.
This is the lapel flag pin level of "by-the-numbers patriotism". Failure to do so is just going to be met with having to try and explain why you don't hate America.
No, it's not necessary. This should be condemned unconditionally, not giving them cover.
It's pretty obvious you are gonna need to head off "But he was a bad guy" claims. The fucking media alone will run with that because they love this shit. And it's also, like, true. The descriptions given of Soleimani are not wrong.
They’re irrelevant.
This was an action against a state, not an individual. Mike Pompeo could also be accurately described as a “bad guy responsible for the deaths of thousands”
It would in no way justify someone assassinating him.
They aren't irrelevant at all. They are the things people will point out about the guy basically immediately if you protest the action. This will absolutely be framed in part as an action against an individual and you need to be able to answer that narrative.
You answer a bullshit narrative by showing it to be bullshit not by playing into it
Edit: the answer to “when did you stop beating your wife?” should not be “last week”
But that's not what's being said. Your example is not analogous to what is going on from either end. You answer the narrative by not arguing the point you can't argue against (ie - he was a "bad guy") and instead attacking the actual problem (ie - starting a war with Iran is stupid). This is especially useful because the US public is much less likely to want to start another war then they are to want to consider the merits of a high ranking member of Iran's parallel military and insurgency organization.
If you just come straight out with "This is bad", period, end of statement then every follow-up question is going to be, "Okay, but wasn't he a bad guy, too?"
It's like North Korea. Invading, air striking, or nuking North Korea is obviously a bad idea. But if the topic comes up somebody is going to ask, "But aren't they bad?" The only way to make the follow-up to "We shouldn't invade North Korea" or "We shouldn't have assassinated this guy" not be, "But isn't he a bad guy?" is to make your statement with a clear provision that you already know that fact and are making the statement despite them being the bad guy. After that the follow-up becomes, "Well...now what?" which is a question with an actually interesting answer.
It should be extremely easy to condemn this act of war, an open assassination of a foreign leader, and it's troubling that almost every politician is waffling on it.
It should be extremely easy to condemn this act of war, an open assassination of a foreign leader, and it's troubling that almost every politician is waffling on it.
Which politicians are waffling on it? I'm not checking every Democrat on twitter or the like, but I've only seen straight up condemnation from the ones I've been exposed to.
It should be extremely easy to condemn this act of war, an open assassination of a foreign leader, and it's troubling that almost every politician is waffling on it.
Which politicians are waffling on it? I'm not checking every Democrat on twitter or the like, but I've only seen straight up condemnation from the ones I've been exposed to.
It should be extremely easy to condemn this act of war, an open assassination of a foreign leader, and it's troubling that almost every politician is waffling on it.
Which politicians are waffling on it? I'm not checking every Democrat on twitter or the like, but I've only seen straight up condemnation from the ones I've been exposed to.
It should be extremely easy to condemn this act of war, an open assassination of a foreign leader, and it's troubling that almost every politician is waffling on it.
Given that the vast majority of media members were instantly teleported to March 2003 last night, I understand the impulse.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
It should be extremely easy to condemn this act of war, an open assassination of a foreign leader, and it's troubling that almost every politician is waffling on it.
Which politicians are waffling on it? I'm not checking every Democrat on twitter or the like, but I've only seen straight up condemnation from the ones I've been exposed to.
"He was bad but" is waffling
No it's not. That's just silly to claim.
Yes, it is
They're saying he deserved to die, that this gross abuse of power and very obvious war crime, is okay
Didn't we just have a big discussion about how it's playing into republican talking points to say "The Hunter Biden situation is corrupt, but..."? If a candidate wants to condemn this assassination, the first thing out of their mouth should not be agreeing with the justification for it.
It should be extremely easy to condemn this act of war, an open assassination of a foreign leader, and it's troubling that almost every politician is waffling on it.
Which politicians are waffling on it? I'm not checking every Democrat on twitter or the like, but I've only seen straight up condemnation from the ones I've been exposed to.
"He was bad but" is waffling
No it's not. That's just silly to claim.
Yes, it is
They're saying he deserved to die, that this gross abuse of power and very obvious war crime, is okay
And it's not
No, they are saying he deserved to die, but that this was a mistake and it will only make things worse. Nobody is saying this was ok.
It should be extremely easy to condemn this act of war, an open assassination of a foreign leader, and it's troubling that almost every politician is waffling on it.
Which politicians are waffling on it? I'm not checking every Democrat on twitter or the like, but I've only seen straight up condemnation from the ones I've been exposed to.
"He was bad but" is waffling
No it's not. That's just silly to claim.
Yes, it is
They're saying he deserved to die, that this gross abuse of power and very obvious war crime, is okay
And it's not
No, they are not. They are literally saying it's not ok. They are just also saying he wasn't a good guy in any way, which is also basically true from their perspective.
Like, by this silly logic saying "death row inmates have done bad things but capital punishment is wrong" is waffling. It's ludicrous.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
Posts
She and Biden both did, that's the problem. Sanders started out with what amounts to a non sequitur but the rest of his statement is strong and sets him apart. The vote stuff can go at the end, the current events need to come first.
Ugh, I was browsing on the phone, so I just read the short 'dynamite into a tinderbox' quote in the tweet, not the embedded statement. Warren's statement is still more disappointing though since I have much lower expectations for basically everything Biden does.
Bernie Sanders Applied for 'Conscientious Objector' Status During Vietnam, Campaign Confirms
Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Big Idea: Ending our Endless Wars
I would love to have someone in the chair who is not going to go out of their way to create new ones, like the one we will most definitely be in the thick of during this election cycle.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
"Soleimani was a bad guy but we definitely shouldn't have killed him" is the right tack to take here, since you need to insulate yourself from the "But he was a bad guy" counter-attacks that are inevitably going to come your way.
I'm not sure how you read "The Netherlands should assassinate the Brazilian president" into that.
PS - Also the Space Force was meaningless so I'm not sure why that's a negative.
A lot of the Dem messaging is going to start with that sentiment, and it sucks.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
He opposed Reagan pseudo-wars. He opposed the Gulf War or any US intervention to protect the Kuwaitis which if you're an absolutist anti-war person I guess is justifiable. Generally a country invading another country is a pretty ironclad act of war though. And he voted against the Iraq War in 2003.
However, he also voted for Kosovo bombing (Clinton) and in support of Libyan regime change and "such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.” He backed bombings of Iraq throughout the 1990s starting once Clinton was about to be sworn in. He said he'd continue using drone strikes if elected when Obama was President and now said he would not when Trump is President. Many Democrats wanted Bill Clinton to intervene in the Rwandan genocide and Sanders has said that the US and other countries should have intervened
I think the charitable view is Sanders is not an ideological pacifist but that he wants to avoid entangling the US in foreign ground conflicts. I personally think there's more of a disinterest in the details of FP and his streak of isolationism informs as much as fundamentally being anti-war.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yup. But it's also kinda necessary, because the public don't give a shit about nuance, and the media have shown they've got no interest in trying to explain it.
Ask John Kerry about "I was for it before I was against it.". Yes, it was probably poor phrasing, but doesn't change the fact that his argument wasn't nearly as flawed as it was made out to be.
This is the lapel flag pin level of "by-the-numbers patriotism". Failure to do so is just going to be met with having to try and explain why you don't hate America.
Honestly "I don't trust a Republican to make good decisions in an armed conflict but I would trust a Democrat" seems to fit the pattern more and is a pretty obvious and coherent stance to take.
If a child rapist gets killed in prison basically everyone is going to say either "Good" or "I mean he was a monster but ..."
I don't think this is much different. The guy was a bad guy, but also killing him this way was bad.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I’m not entirely sure. The general voter is going to hear that Soleimani was killed but then also hear the things he was responsible for in his position, and most people are going to probably think it’s good that this guy is dead.
The “he was a bad guy, but this was wrong” take is where quite a few people are going to land on this one.
No, it's not necessary. This should be condemned unconditionally, not giving them cover.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
But remember for much of that Sanders claimed Dems and Reps were essentially equivalent. It was bullshit but if he believed it even a little basing his FP positions on it seems unlikely unless he really just didn't prioritize it.
And if he becomes Commander In Chief he won't have that measure.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
"But he's not a strict 100% pacifist!"
OK? Neither are any of the other candidates?
"But he just blindly goes with the crowd!"
Which crowd was he blindly following when he voted against the Iraq war, which split Democrats of the time down the middle?
Maybe he didn't fully believe it on foreign policy. I mean, the guy caucuses with the Democrats and is running for that party's nomination.
It's pretty obvious you are gonna need to head off "But he was a bad guy" claims. The fucking media alone will run with that because they love this shit. And it's also, like, true. The descriptions given of Soleimani are not wrong.
If there's one thing that I've learned it's that this stupid shit matters, and these statements as written end up almost being a nod to Trump especially for people who are subconsciously inclined to take in the first thing they read. That is such a shame because in both cases what followed was good.
Sanders' read to me as somewhat exploitative, and while I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt it leaves a bad taste.
I don't come away feeling much better about any of them, although at least Sanders left no room for doubt that he fully condemns the move.
Sanders winning the election just after Trump plunges us into another hellwar would be the height of black comedy. Even just trying to tie up the war fast would drench his hands in blood.
They’re irrelevant.
This was an action against a state, not an individual. Mike Pompeo could also be accurately described as a “bad guy responsible for the deaths of thousands”
It would in no way justify someone assassinating him.
They aren't irrelevant at all. They are the things people will point out about the guy basically immediately if you protest the action. This will absolutely be framed in part as an action against an individual and you need to be able to answer that narrative.
You answer a bullshit narrative by showing it to be bullshit not by playing into it
Edit: the answer to “when did you stop beating your wife?” should not be “last week”
But that's not what's being said. Your example is not analogous to what is going on from either end. You answer the narrative by not arguing the point you can't argue against (ie - he was a "bad guy") and instead attacking the actual problem (ie - starting a war with Iran is stupid). This is especially useful because the US public is much less likely to want to start another war then they are to want to consider the merits of a high ranking member of Iran's parallel military and insurgency organization.
It's like North Korea. Invading, air striking, or nuking North Korea is obviously a bad idea. But if the topic comes up somebody is going to ask, "But aren't they bad?" The only way to make the follow-up to "We shouldn't invade North Korea" or "We shouldn't have assassinated this guy" not be, "But isn't he a bad guy?" is to make your statement with a clear provision that you already know that fact and are making the statement despite them being the bad guy. After that the follow-up becomes, "Well...now what?" which is a question with an actually interesting answer.
Which politicians are waffling on it? I'm not checking every Democrat on twitter or the like, but I've only seen straight up condemnation from the ones I've been exposed to.
"He was bad but" is waffling
No it's not. That's just silly to claim.
Given that the vast majority of media members were instantly teleported to March 2003 last night, I understand the impulse.
Yes, it is
They're saying he deserved to die, that this gross abuse of power and very obvious war crime, is okay
And it's not
No, they are saying he deserved to die, but that this was a mistake and it will only make things worse. Nobody is saying this was ok.
No, they are not. They are literally saying it's not ok. They are just also saying he wasn't a good guy in any way, which is also basically true from their perspective.
Like, by this silly logic saying "death row inmates have done bad things but capital punishment is wrong" is waffling. It's ludicrous.
That's a better statement from Warren.